University of Toronto study finds atmosphere will adapt to hotter, wetter climate
(photo by Liam Kearney via Flickr)
A study led by atmospheric physicists at the University of Toronto finds that global warming will not lead to an overall increasingly stormy atmosphere, a topic debated by scientists for decades.
Instead, strong storms will become stronger while weak storms become weaker, and the cumulative result of the number of storms will remain unchanged.
“We know that with global warming we’ll get more evaporation of the oceans,” said Frédéric Laliberté, a research associate at U of T’s physics department and lead author of a study published this week in Science. “But circulation in the atmosphere is like a heat engine that requires fuel to do work, just like any combustion engine or a convection engine.”
The atmosphere’s work as a heat engine occurs when an air mass near the surface takes up water through evaporation as it is warmed by the sun and moves closer to the equator. The warmer the air mass is, the more water it takes up. As it reaches the equator, it begins to ascend through the atmosphere, eventually cooling as it radiates heat out into space. Cool air can hold less moisture than warm air, so as the air cools, condensation occurs, which releases heat. When enough heat is released, air begins to rise even further, pulling more air behind it producing a thunderstorm. The ultimate “output” of this atmospheric engine is the amount of heat and moisture that is redistributed between the equator and the North and South Poles.
“By viewing the atmospheric circulation as a heat engine, we were able to rely on the laws of thermodynamics to analyze how the circulation would change in a simulation of global warming,” said Laliberté. “We used these laws to quantify how the increase in water vapour that would result from global warming would influence the strength of the atmospheric circulation.”
The researchers borrowed techniques from oceanography and looked at observations and climate simulations. Their approach allowed them to test global warming scenarios and measure the output of atmospheric circulation under warming conditions.
“We came up with an improved technique to comprehensively describe how air masses change as they move from the equator to the poles and back, which let us put a number on the energy efficiency of the atmospheric heat engine and measure its output,” said Laliberté.
The scientists concluded that the increase in water vapour was making the process less efficient by evaporating water into air that is not already saturated with water vapour. They showed that this inefficiency limited the strengthening of atmospheric circulation, though not in a uniform manner. Air masses that are able to reach the top of the atmosphere are strengthened, while those that can not are weakened.
“Put more simply, powerful storms are strengthened at the expense of weaker storms,” said Laliberté. “We believe atmospheric circulation will adapt to this less efficient form of heat transfer, and we will see either fewer storms overall or at least a weakening of the most common, weaker storms.”
The findings are reported in the paper “Constrained work output of the moist atmospheric heat engine in a warming climate” published January 30 in Science. The work was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Do they mean thunderstorms?
And Global Neutral =? and Global Cooling =? And finally, “it is honestly too chaotic to measure or model” =?
And yet they get paid, and furthermore are entrusted with training the young to become useful scientists by spouting this hyperbole?
“Strong storms become stronger; weak storms become weaker.”
Due to an argument by Galileo, there must be a storm strength that is absolutely stable, and neither grows nor shrinks.
How many Hiroshima atom bomb equivalents izzat ??
CO2…that magic molecule that changes the weather…without changing the temperature
..and these morons believe in run away global humidity
They didn’t even look at any real measurements
They say they did look at observations.
And then ignored them.
In Queensland you could excuse them for standing out in sun too long but in this case they have just gone Troppo.
M…how did they observe something that hasn’t happened?
I have a question. Since the world has warmed to ‘unprecedented’ levels since the mid-1970s and we went through the ‘hottest’ decade and years on the record:
Q) Have strong storms become stronger, and weak storms become weaker since the mid-1970s?
Wow! Some people using real science. “By viewing the atmospheric circulation as a heat engine, we were able to rely on the laws of thermodynamics to analyze how the circulation would change in a simulation of global warming,” said Laliberté. “We used these laws to quantify how the increase in water vapour that would result from global warming would influence the strength of the atmospheric circulation.”
If water vapor was actually increasing, they would be using real science…
http://www.climate4you.com/images/TotalColumnWaterVapourDifferentAltitudesObservationsSince1983.gif
GIGO is GIGO.
That’s strange. With the world getting warmer you would expect more water vapour in the atmosphere.
What’s the source for that chart?
And, more importantly, what’s the explanation?
David M., Three things: 1) perhaps you didn’t notice, but your column water drop coincides beautifully with the hiatus in temperature rise. 2) it is possible that their fast dynamical process could work within the longer term time frame of your column water record. 3) They are referring to a “what if” GW, so the record of the past is not much use.
They are always referring to “what if” AGW.
Whoops–maybe the step-llke change is just due to a change in the analysis procedure.
“There is a possibility that the step-like change shown 1998-1999 to some degree may be related to changes in the analysis procedure used for producing the data set, according to information from ISCCP.”
http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm
The source is NASA.
Yes, I agree with what some of you have already said. It is interesting that the hottest ten years in all of recorded history show lower total water vapor. Maybe it is an instrumental or methodology offset. Very unfortunate timing though.
“Hottest ten years in *all of recorded history*”… On what planet? Recorded history began a few thousand years prior to instrumental temperature records.
Air and sea-surface temperatures are not the only factors effecting (sic) evaporation. The energy of visible and UV radiation break up molecular clusters (of water molecules) facilitating evaporation. So there is a direct as well as an indirect contribution by sunlight.
So the missing water vapour is hiding in the deep ocean?
And causing sea level to rise… 😉
Yes, even the IPCC knows that water vapor is not increasing. Trouble is, does “column” water vapor mean total H2O or just vapor (gas)? Clouds and fog are actually liquid H2O and many stratospheric clouds are ice. They all weigh about the same…
It couldn’t possibly be due to the 1998 El Niño, could it.
Indeed.
I agree with Lance Wallace’s analysis. The step changes and the time frames coincide with a very common patter of measuring instrument degradation and calibration and servicing. The apparent leveling off of the readings after 2009 coincide with the advent of SMART instrumentation and Automatic calibrations and Standardized Testing protocol.
Having a thorough knowledge of this type of instrumentation I could suggest that all the data after 1999 is accurate. Prior to that I would only rely on data that is within one year of a certified calibration. That info is not provided here, but I would bet a paycheck that the calibrations were done in the years where the readings are on the same plane as 1999 to 2010. Look at 1983 and 1990. My theory is the original instrument was put in service in 1983. Routine calibrations may not reveal cell degradation until the margin of error of the calibration procedure is breached. A new cell was likely installed in 1990 when the first cell went bad enough to be changed. Then in 1999 a new Smart Instrument went in when the 1990 cell failed. No doubt in my mind.
The graph above tells me there is ZERO change in Total Column Water Vapor from 1983 to 2010. However, the measuring instruments and their capabilities have changed.
I think it is ignoring science? I know GWA claim everything, but mostly I have read the cold regions will warm disproportionally more. Meaning there would be less power available to drive storms.
Looks like they’ve been reading Willis here at WUWT! However, I don’t quite understand this bit:
“The scientists concluded that the increase in water vapour was making the process less efficient by evaporating water into air that is not already saturated with water vapour.” ????
It doesn’t read well but I think they mean that the increase in water vapour would make the process less efficient as the air already has a high water vapour content, but not high enough to be saturated.
It look like a partial pressure thing – dry air takes in water vapour more easily than air that is already humid as the water in the air could go back down in exchange.
They probably do “mean that the increase in water vapour *would* make the process”… The problem is that they seem to be assuming the increase in water vapor to be a given.
The source of the chart… http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm
David Middleton, thank you for the source.
There does seem to be a step down after the huge, late-1990s El Nino and then a lower flat line after that jump.
Still not sure I understand why though.
Just nice to see what is.
Hmm. A bunch of people shouldn’t have to try and figure what they actually meant to say in what they actually wrote. Does having to do that mean that the rest of what they wrote might not actually mean what the meant to say? Off the top, the reviewers and the journal hit the deck here (quelle surprise).
Perhaps the issue has something to do with air density. Hot air is less dense than cold air and will therefore rise. Add water vapor and the density decreases further and it rises faster. The NASA data suggest that even though the planet is slightly warmer than say 30 years ago, the net effect re water vapor is to decrease it, perhaps by speeding the vertical rise, condensation, radiation to space, and return to earth of eddys.
‘Warming’. A big word that implies or suggests a temperature change larger than what we have experienced or can expect. What are the chances that any large majority know that ‘warming’ is measured in tenths of a degree; in other words, a temperature shift that is so minor as to to undetectable to living organisms. ‘A warming world’. Please, just stop.
Where is Sadie Carnot when you need him?
Often hear that the ocean/atmosphere described as a ‘water cycle – heat engine’, with emphasis on the “heat”, but missing the “engine” part that is doing work. What about credit for heat conversion? How much heat is converted to power to the move the air masses, move tons of water converted to snow and ice on top of the mountains. Also, as I posted elsewhere,
How about this, if Velocity = sqrt( 2 * g * height )
So for rain falling from 5000 m (16,400 FT) you get a velocity of 313 m/s.
But terminal velocity of rain 8 m/s and hail is around 43 m/s.
Now those rock stars can “Get their money for nothing and their chicks for free” according to Dir Straits, but most engineers know Changing a masses velocity takes energy and friction is never free. So does their model leave most of the energy up in the air where is really is and what is the follow on effect on the storms.
Carnot knowledge is Hot!…..and Waaay Cool!
And the average ones will become more medium sized…
LOL! Finally someone catches on.
Did I get this one right? (below)
Everything you believe is true… only more so.
Quite. I mean, what’s a thunderstorm supposed to do if it’s not sure if it is a big one or a little one? It’s not an easy life being a thunderstorm.
But that is what I asked above – do they mean thunderstorms or storms? There is a big difference.
Sloppy writing.
Yes, that’s the key to understanding the paper: everything will get ever so much more so. Thank you. I shall put away my BS meter, now, as unnecessary.
No! Average storms will get averager. The averagest storm of the coming decade will be front page news and proof positive of global warming. Skeptics will bow their heads in shame.
And the average ones will become more medium sized…
– Bravo Maurizio!!!
Seriously good people, I suggest that warmer weather decreases the energy difference between the equator and the poles and leads to less intense large storms (hurricanes, aka typhoons, aka cyclones), and that is consistent with observations over recent decades.
Conversely, renewed global cooling that appears imminent will result in more intense large storms.
Watch this space …
Curious their focus on the tropics where the January UAH anomaly is only 0.12°C (0.19°C over water).
Given the cold and stormy winter in the northeast, vs. the warm and sunny winter in the northwest, I have another reason to be skeptical.
OTOH, I hear Ann Arbor broke a 1934 record low today by 14 degrees F. That’s really impressive, as 1934 was quite a year. From February, see http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/feb_1934_small.jpg from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/21/weather-before-and-after-the-hurricane-of-1938/
and average storms will become . . . more average?
Whatever it is, we’ll get more of it, or possibly less of it, with global warming.
Its definitely worse than we thought.. or better, or even the same.
Absolutely. Unless they become less average.
So on a doomedness scale of 1 to 10 we will be around 5 or 6?
What about the reduction of temperature differential between poles and equators in a warmer world? That lessens the energy for storms. A cooler world is likely a stormier one.
What about the lack of warming the last 15+ years? Why is it always assumed that the future will be warmer?
They are working hard to link man-made CO2 to extreme weather, but it the dots do not connect, either in theory or in empirical fact.
What is this, science by Goldilocks?
If you have a strong storm they can say it would have been an average one.
If you have a weak storm they can say it would have been an average one.
If you don’t have a storm at all it should have been a weak one.
Hard to get a storm that’s just right.
Goldilocks science! Brilliant!
You’ve got to get the adjustment s just right.
Well, Goldilocks has a Nobel Peace Prize.
An average storm ?
The average of the stronger strong storms and the weaker weak storms should be in the mid-range…the field of medium strength storms…which appears to be a forbidden energy level.
So even though we will be able to calculate the strength of an “average” storm no one will ever experience one.
A strange world we live in.
But, if weak ones become weaker, at the margins some weak ones will disappear, and so there SHOULD BE FEWER as a result!
I think what they are saying is that oil production from fracking shale does not make transportation more efficient because it just fills gas tanks that are not full already.;)
The researchers borrowed techniques from oceanography and looked at observations and climate simulations. Their approach allowed them to test global warming scenarios and measure the output of atmospheric circulation under warming conditions.
Now that assumes their climate simulations actually simulate the climate properly. Color me doubtful.
I have always thought that in a warming world, the atmospheric circulation would speed up and thus send more heat out to space, thus constraining the warming…that’s why we never had run-away warming.
And no storms to become no storms !
Nawwww, calm weather will become even calmer.
While there is no science to ‘observe’, here is list of the NASA’s Earth Observing Fleet of satellites with links to a lot more interesting stuff.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=4274
Thank you, Vuk.
US needs lot more of the Anthropogenic warming, Ice age arrived at the shore off Nantucket
http://www.vijesti.me/media/cache/8e/6e/8e6ecf642d45838ccaf4146eff60a49f.jpg
nature’s slushies – look like grape and kale is flavor of the day
As a surfer, I love it. Great shot!
Carbonbunga!!
Looks photo-shopped to me.
Fantastic if that is real. Maybe the whole Atlantic Ocean will freeze this time.
Hi Mr. Smith
I think it could be the ice ‘slush’ floating on a wave (photographed from some distance). Freezing of the Atlantic is hopefully some time off (see HERE)
more here
http://www.krmg.com/news/news/national/amazing-weird-ice-formations-across-globe/nkFQK/
correct link
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/frozen-slurpee-waves-lick-shores-nantucket-n314116
.
I have seen a couple of others that show splashes in front of the wave as it rolls into the sea. I don’t believe it’s real and any image can be tested for alteration by PhotoShop etc via some online tools.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/frozen-slurpee-waves-lick-shores-nantucket-n314116
Excellent photo by that famous “young man from Nantucket”.
Obviously the increase in CO2 has reduced the amount of O2 getting to their brains. I can’t even count the number of thermodynamic laws this violates.
One would be planty. This putative ever-so-much-more-so partition into strong storms and weak storms is counterintuitive, to say the least. I suspect it’s the result of advanced proctocraniosis.
Considering there is zero observational data to back up this claim with the warming we HAVE already had, I assume this claim is based on models.
Is what they said. No assuming necessary.
If you read the literature on large precipitation events in the US, the papers tend to look at data from 1895 to almost current, whenever the paper was written. They find 1 in 6 stations has a significant trend so they conclude that the occurrence of large precipitation events events is increasing in the US: this is the conventional view. So it cannot be said there is zero observational data to back up the claim.
However, when I analyzed the data for Iowa I find that there are two definite breaks in trend of precipitation at around 1930 and 1970. If the data are analyzed for trend from 1895 to 1930, there is no trend. If the data are analyzed from 1930 to 1970 there is a definite upward trend (not surprising because of the very dry 1930’s). If the data are analyzed from 1970 to now, there is no trend in either size of event or frequency of large events.
Urrrgh! Will it ever end? If “weak storms will become weaker” they will stop being storms and become light rain! Follow that logic and there will be fewer storms.
That’s as far as Im going to go on this as models of models of models is just getting too stupid. I know a lot of people trying to predict stocks or the next number to drop on Roulette in the casino who also try similar predictive models, also based on “laws” (this time of probability). This is just as convoluted. Same junk.
In a word borrowed from that infamous WW2 Brigadier General Anthony C. McAuliffe:
All this hinges on the vanishingly small amount of additional oceanic warming causing a vanishingly small amount of additional evaporation coming off the ocean all sourced by the vanishingly small amount of additional CO2 being added to the overall amount of natural CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. The natural variations in storms caused by the natural variations of the ocean layer of importance, combined with the natural variations of the atmosphere of importance in this scenario overwhelms any changes caused by puny anthropogenic additions.
IE, Nuts.
read: from big to fail.
still no one shown ‘to big to fail’ approved.
____
Thanks Pamela. Regards – Hans
Just a dumb question: Where does all of the energy from a lightning bolt go after it is formed?
HLS AKA Heat, Light, and Sound !!!
It warms the air through which it passed. All the energy is expended during the currant flow. There is no net energy gain or loss. The charge separation that caused the lightning took work. The lightning bolt gives it back. No free lunch rules.
I don’t think the study is too bad. I think Willis should be cited, however. I have said on a few occasions that we are going to see Willis’s work in print but with unfamiliar names on it. The ultimate irony is if Willis’s continues his expansion on the topic, he will be harpooned for not citing “previous studies.” That’s what I find really wrong with the paper.
Anyway, the end game in all its chaotic variety is underway. Congress/Whitehouse investigations of those who brought them the presentations they didn’t want to hear, backpedaling in small incremental ways (grudgingly forced to eat crow pie re natural variability, the sun, ENSO, AMO, PDO etc,) firing of recalcitrant professors and editors, a plague of psychosis/neurosis descending on climate stars who’s mental constitutions were suspect to begin with and who are resisting their own mind’s realization that they have a wasted career behind them (Weepy Bill, Butterfly Hide-and-Go Seek, half the Ozzie troughers apparently). Stronger ones with more than one bolt to their quiver would say, hey, I had it wrong and jump onto fresh horses and enjoy a real career, or the totally unscrupulous (you need a few scruples in there somewhere to be able to have such a depression) who brazen it out and keep going like Ehrlich and his type who just switch from death by ice to death by fire – they only want rationale to get rid of 95% of the human race.
There that rant felt good.
It also means that Willis will have to out his funding. And the warmista will insist that it is not possible to have an intellectual thought without some funding, and if he’s a sceptic., it’d have to be oil, or some right-wing conspiracygroup/family/Koch/Palin/Bush clone. But then, if an idea hasn’t been peer-reviewed by the palocracy, it doesn’t exist, right?
All this means is that anyone who has ever bought Willis a cup of coffee or a donut, please note you could be subpoenaed by some idiot in Congress for trying to unduly influence Willis.
Did you mean ‘climocracy’ or ‘kleptocracy’?
I also don’t think it is too bad. No hyperbole really, because everything is measured against a “warming” atmosphere. I, too see Willis in here, and although he may deserve some credit, it must be rewarding to see an idea being discussed. There isn’t too much here that is new. You younger folks who have kept up on new work since I retired 14 years ago may want to comment on this observation.
Years ago folks believed that major cold fronts (with major humidity differences in the two air masses) during warm spring and summer weather would spawn “squall lines” in the air mass in the warm sector. It was thought that afternoon and evening heating initiated what would be normal convective Tstorms (ahead of the front). It often appeared that activity along the squall line was coincidental with a decrease in activity along the frontal boundary. As the squall line storms dumped and diminished, activity along the cold front would increase. I remember a day in June (?) when hot/humid gulf air (mT) created a rash of tornadoes across central Illinois, which died down around sunset, and was followed by a second round of tornadoes produced by the frontal lifting. It was a mess – about the mid-1960’s. The fact that the shape of the squall line and the advancing from were virtual identical, but maybe 200 miles (?) apart, was compelling for a relationship of some form of energy interaction. Can anyone update me on current thinking about this?
I mention this because they almost appear to be applying this idea to the broader atmospheric circulation. Thanks- I love this site.
But of course this applies to our host, as well. Anthony be able to declare “Mission Accomplished” and move on to . . . something.
This does not support the amount fear mongering needed by the “consensus”. I hope they realize they could end up being investigated by congress for this. /s
As Gary Pearse implies above , the report was a good “find” and one to set alongside numerous discussions here about the trends, or absence of trends , in “extreme weather”.
Unless you are a very good mathematician or a thermodynamics engineer however it is not an easy read.
The link is :
Science 30 January 2015: 540-543. [DOI:10.1126/science.1257103]
It is of course paywalled , but you can get much or most of it by clicking on “supplemental materials” and down loading the PDF containing : Materials and Methods , Supplementary Text, Figs and Refs .
It starts :
“From the CESM 1.02 coupled climate model with the CAM4 dynamical core,—”
and gets increasingly difficult ( for me anyway) but I feel that it has some important new ideas for addressing the climate change debate and hopefully some of the contributers here can translate them.
Mike, I am an old engineer (mining, metallurgy). As a re-introduction, or for someone new to TD, I recommend a fun little thin book that has the nuts and bolts of it in easy, very readable form. It probably won’t crack the math of this paper but you will have a pretty good idea what they are talking about. You can get it used for $3.61 or a Kindle for $7-8. At Univ I had good marks in thermo over 50 years ago and the book jogged most of it back to me.
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Thermodynamics-Dover-Books-Physics-ebook/dp/B008TVLX1C/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1
Gary
Thanks I will look for it
Gary,
Thanks for that! This old metallurgical engineer could use a ‘refresher’ as well…
Mac
https://www.bookbyte.com/textbooks/understanding-thermodynamics-by-van-ness/9780486632773-0486632776?autocomplete
Cheaper